Eligible pre-2006 retirees cannot be excluded from notional increment benefits by an administrative cutoff.

The applicants, retired BSNL Telecom Technical Assistants, retired on 31 May 2004 and 30 November 2007. They claimed a notional annual increment for completing the qualifying year of service before retirement, relying on The Director (Admn. & HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani.

BSNL rejected the first applicant’s claim, while the second applicant later received arrears of ₹33,252; the dispute that remained before the Tribunal concerned the first applicant’s entitlement.

The respondents relied on the DoPT and DoT memoranda implementing the Supreme Court’s subsequent directions in Union of India v. M. Siddaraj. DoT’s memorandum restricted eligibility to employees retiring from BSNL/MTNL service on or after 1 January 2006.

1. Whether the first applicant, who retired before 1 January 2006, was entitled to a notional increment for pensionary purposes under Mundinamani and the subsequent directions in M. Siddaraj, notwithstanding the restriction in the DoT memorandum.

2. Whether the notional increment also required revision of gratuity and other retiral benefits.

In Mundinamani, the Supreme Court held that an increment is earned upon completion of the requisite service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day; it directed grant of an annual increment earned on the last day of service.

The subsequent Supreme Court directions in M. Siddaraj, as reproduced in the DoPT memorandum, provide that for third parties the enhanced pension based on one increment is payable from 1 May 2023; successful litigants receive relief subject to the stated finality and appeal qualifications; and applicants who initiated proceedings may receive the enhanced pension for the three years preceding the month in which they filed their application.

The DoPT/DoT memoranda implemented those directions. The DoPT memorandum further stated that the increment is to be reckoned for calculating pension, but not other pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal held that the DoT memorandum’s restriction to employees retiring on or after 1 January 2006 introduced a limitation not found in the Supreme Court’s directions or the DoPT memorandum. It therefore found no justification for excluding the first applicant, notwithstanding his earlier retirement, and declined to apply that restriction to him.

The Tribunal separately rejected the claim to revised gratuity and other retiral benefits because the Supreme Court had not specifically directed such relief and the applicable memorandum confined the increment’s use to calculating pension.

The claim for revision of gratuity and other pensionary benefits was rejected. The application was disposed of with no order as to costs.